Communicated on 16 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56218/07 Sergey Nikolayevich YESIPOV against the Republic of Moldova and 11 other applications (see list appended)

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the respective applicants, are summarised in column V of the Appendix.

Below is the list of applicants and the basic information concerning each applicant.

The applicants complained of inadequate conditions of detention, lack of qualified medical assistance, unlawful detention and the lack of effective remedies against these infringements. In some of the applications, they also raised complains under other provisions of the Convention ( for further details see the appended table ).

1. Application no. 56218/07 lodg ed on 5 December 2007 by Sergey YESIPOV, who was born on 14 May 1956 and lives in Stakhanov (Ukraine), represented by Liubovi GRISHCHENCO.

2. Application no. 58144/09 lo dged on 23 October 2009 by Igor BONDARE NCO, who was born on 9 December 1967 and lives in Bender.

3. Application no. 41660/10 lodged on 7 July 2010 by Elena DOBROVI TCHI, who was born on 8 January 1990 and lives in Bender, represented by Alexandru ZUBCO.

4. Application no. 15956/11 lodged on 27 February 2011 by Valerii ISTRATII, who was born on 14 June 1966 and lives in Kotovsk (Ukraine).

5. Application no. 16281/11 l odged on 10 March 2011 by Ostap POPOVSCH I, who was born on 18 September 1985 and lives in Tiraspol, represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

6. Application no. 25197/11 lodge d on 11 April 2011 by Alexandru URSU, who was born on 10 April 1981 and lives in Hagimus , represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

7. Application no. 767/12 lodged on 26 December 2011 by Natalya S HAPOVAL, who was born on 24 May 1960 and lives in Ribnita , represented by Vyacheslav TSURKAN.

8. Application no. 3 2528/12 lodged on 22 May 2012 by Oksana IONOVA, who was born on 3 June 1966 and lives in Tiraspol, represented by Veaceslav ŢURCAN.

9. Application no. 28972/13 lodged on 2 May 2012 by Serghei BOLTENCO, and lives in Tiraspol, represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

10. Application no. 80882/13 lodge d on 24 December 2013 by Vasile UNTILOV, who was born on 9 June 1968 and lives in Varniţa , represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

11. Application no. 55698/14 lod ged on 31 July 2014 by Valentin BABCHIN, who was born on 17 July 1975 and lives in Bender, represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

12. Application no. 8387/15 lodged on 3 February 2015 by Iva n ROSIP, who was born on 20 May 1958 and lives in Bender, represented by Alexandru POSTICA.

COMPLAINTS

The list and details of the complaints raised by each applicant have been set out and summarised in the appended table.

COMMON QUESTIONs

As to the admissibility

1. Do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court, inter alia, in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], (no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia , no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011, Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370 /04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] , no.11138/10, 23 February 2016, on account of the circumstances of the present cases?

In particular, in the light of the above-mentioned cases, could the responsibility of the respondent Governments under the Convention be engaged on account of their positive obligations to secure the applicants ’ rights under the Convention?

Have there been any developments following the above-mentioned cases which might affect the responsibility of either Contracting Party?

As to the merits

2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present cases? ( see all applications from the appended table, except application no. 58144/09 ). In particular:

(a) were the applicants provided with medical assistance appropriate to their condition?

(b) were they detained in inhuman conditions of detention, also considering their state of health?

3 . Do the facts of each case disclose a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? ( see all applications from the appended table, except applications nos. 28972/13 and 80882/13). In particular, was the applicants ’ detention lawful, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of applications nos. 41660/10, 767/12, 55698/14 and 8387/15?

5 . Did the applicants have at their disposal effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 as required under Article 13 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

6. In respect of applications nos. 56218/07 and 28972/13, has the applicants ’ life been put in danger as a result of the alleged failure to provide them with the medical assistance required by their medical condition? If so, has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as a result of that failure (see appended table )?

7. Do the facts of some cases (see applications nos. 56218/07, 15956/11, 16281/11 and 25197/11) disclose a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by a tribunal “established by law” as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were some of the applicants (see applications nos. 56218/07, 15956/11, 767/12 and 32528/12) deprived of any procedural safeguards while standing trial, in violation of Article 6 § 3 of the Convention?

8. Has there been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in respect of application no. 16281/11?

9. Do the facts of applications nos. 767/12 and 32528/12 disclose a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants prevented from receiving correspondence without censorship and, if so, was this a lawful and proportionate interference?

10. Do the facts of applications nos. 56218/07, 15956/11, 16281/11, 55698/14 and 8387/15 disclose a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular was the interference with the applicants ’ property “lawful”, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it proportionate to that purpose, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

11. Do the facts of the case (see application no. 41660/10) disclose a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention as a result of the applicant ’ s inability to leave the city of Bender?

1 2. Did the relevant applicants have at their disposal effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2, 6, 7 and 8, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

I

No.

II

Application no.

III

Lodged on

IV

Applicant ’ s name

D ate of birth

P lace of residence

V

Summary of Facts

VI

Communicated Complaints

VII

Respondent State (s)

56218/07

05/12/2007

Sergey YESIPOV

14/05/1956

Stakhanov (Ukraine)

In December 2006 the applicant was arrested by the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria ” (the “MRT”) on suspicion of “vehicle smuggling” (the criminal proceedings being ultimately discontinued in this respect), illegal purchase, selling or carrying of a weapon, burglary, abuse of powers and forgery.

He was detained pending trial by the Tiraspol district court, which in July 2010 convicted him and sentenced him to 15 years ’ imprisonment with the confiscation of his property. This decision was upheld by the “MRT” supreme court on 31 August 2010.

The applicant alleges that his office was searched unlawfully, that he was compelled to provide self-incriminatory statements, that his complaint to the “MRT” prosecutor about the illegal actions of one of the investigators were answered by that same investigator.

In 2007, while in detention (СИЗО basement/ “ГСИН МЮ ПМР”) he underwent a surgical intervention, but his health condition worsened; his life and health were at risk given the lack of specific medical facilities and qualified personnel for a proper post-surgery rehabilitation, this fact being supported by the documents adduced to the file.

According to the documents in the file, since 2008 the applicant is detained in (“СИЗО-3”).

Article 2 § 1 - his life was put at risk by failure to provide him with the required medical assistance (in Ribnita remand center ), like the administration of insulin as he suffered from diabetes.

Article 3 - he was denied his life-support medication (the insulin) and appropriate medical assistance to lessen the pain, and was held and transported in inhuman conditions of detention, while being transferred repeatedly from one remand center to another, impeding his relatives to transmit the medication (the insulin), which destabilised his health condition even further. He underwent post-surgical rehabilitation in the humid basements of the remand centers , where he had also suffered a heart attack.

Article 5 § 1 - the applicant was arrested without sufficient reasons in December 2006, his arrest being unlawful as authorised and extended by illegal courts set up by the “MRT” authorities; the applicant was unlawfully arrested given that the criminal proceedings were brought against a third party, the monthly extensions of his arrest were unlawful as the accusations brought against him were forged and ill-founded.

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 - the applicant was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, he was not acquainted with the case-file and provided with the copies of the court decisions, and he lacked adequate means of defence.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - he was deprived of his property based on his unlawful conviction by the unlawfully created courts.

Article 13 - no effective remedies in respect of the above infringements.

Republic of Moldova

and Russia

58144/09

23/10/2009

Igor BONDARENCO

09/12/1967

Bender

On 10 September 2007 the Tiraspol district court declared the applicant guilty of the alleged “disclosure of a State secret” and convicted him to five years and six months ’ imprisonment.

The applicant ’ s conviction was upheld by the “MRT ” supreme court ’ s decision of 29 April 2009.

Article 5 § 1 (a) - he was held in detention based on a conviction by illegally created courts: the “MRT ” courts.

Republic of Moldova

41660/10

07/07/2010

Elena DOBROVITCHI

08/01/1990

Bender

On 16 June 2010 the applicant was summoned by the “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs in her capacity as a “witness” in the criminal proceedings brought against her mother on alleged charges of “fraud”. At the material time, the applicant ’ s mother was declared a “wanted person” by the “MRT” authorities. The applicant was questioned about an hour and threatened with detention in case of refusal to provide information on her mother ’ s “hiding place”. She refused to denounce her mother, who at the material time was hospitalised in a Moldovan hospital for treatment, being accused of “covert theft of another ’ s property”. The applicant was informed that she would be kept in detention until her mother ’ s return back to “MRT”.

The applicant was detained in the basement of Bender ’ s remand center . She was released from detention on 19 June 2010, subject to an undertaking not to leave the “MRT” territory.

She complained unsuccessfully to the Moldovan authorities.

Article 3 - detained in a basement, inadequate artificial lighting and lack of natural lighting, inadequate ventilation, poor quality of food, poor conditions of hygiene, inadequate toilet facilities, common bathroom for men and women, lack of warm water, lack of running water in the cell, cold and humid walls and floor, lack of bed linen, lack of adequate medical care, passive smoking.

Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 - she was arrested by persons lacking the authority for such a purpose (the illegally created militia) rendering her arrest unlawful; she was unlawfully taken as a hostage, her placement in the remand center was not registered in the official record, she was not informed about the reasons for the arrest, lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for her detention, she was not assisted by a counselor during the interrogation, she was not brought before a judge. Although she had identified the person taking her as a hostage and she is a citizen of the Republic of Moldova, no measures had been taken to engage the offender ’ s criminal responsibility, the latter continuing to exercise his powers while the applicant is at risk of repeated detention.

Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 - the applicant deprived of any real and effective means of challenging the actions of the “MRT” investigating officer when subjected her to arrest, no enforceable right to compensation provided at domestic level, the applicant deprived of the right to lodge an appeal in either Moldova or Russia against the infringement of her rights under these provisions.

Article 8 - because of her detention the applicant was in the impossibility to pass the university exams as scheduled, the existence of the criminal proceedings against her had affected her social life with the university colleagues, she claims that her place of residence is under continuous surveillance by suspicious persons and that her telephone conversations are tapped.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - the applicant was prohibited to leave the Bender ’ s territory by a person lacking authority to that effect (as being part of the “MRT” authorities); she was to obtain permission to attend the courses at the university located in another locality of that region; she was unable to continue her studies or be employed in Russia, Ukraine or Moldova, or to meet her lawyers in any of these countries.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

15956/11

27/02/2011

Valerii ISTRATII

14/06/1966

Kotovsk (Ukraine)

On 30 June 2008 the applicant was apprehended by Ribnita (“MRT” region) militia. He was held in detention in Ribnita remand center until 8 June 2009 when he was convicted by the Ribnita district court to two years and six months ’ imprisonment for “unlawful acquisition of former Soviet Union awards”, “theft of a citizen ’ s passport or of other important personal document”, and “fraud”. He was not provided with a lawyer in court.

On 17 July 2009 the applicant was convoyed to the “MRT” penitentiary facility No. 1 Hlinaia . While in detention he was diagnosed with “organic brain damage accompanied by hypertension”.

On 31 December 2010 the applicant was released from detention.

He complained unsuccessfully before the Republic of Moldova ’ s authorities.

Article 3 - detention prior to the conviction: lack of toilet facilities, lack of natural light and fresh air; detention after conviction: lack of adequate medical assistance, the applicant was held in the same cell with other sick detainees.

Article 3 - while in detention after conviction, the applicant, refusing to eat, was placed in a separate cell and handcuffed to a radiator, being subjected to forced nutrition for 17 days (by means of a watering pot and a hosepipe), afterwards he was placed in a barrack-type of cell with detainees suffering from an open form of tuberculosis, he was diagnosed with “organic brain damage accompanied by hypertension” while in the penitentiary ’ s premises, the lack of adequate medical assistance worsened his health condition to the extent that this illness became a chronic one, his correspondence and visits with his relatives were restricted at the penitentiary ’ s administration ’ own discretion causing him much distress given his mother ’ s death in August 2009, whose funeral he could not attend.

Article 5 § 1 (b) - he was arrested by persons lacking the authority to arrest him, he was deprived of his liberty for two years and six months in the absence of a lawful investigation and a lawful judicial review; his relatives have not been informed about his arrest and location.

Article 6 § 1 - the applicant was convicted by unlawfully created courts lacking authority to that effect.

Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (c) and (d) - absence of procedural safeguards, including the lack of legal assistance, he was deprived of the right to cross-examine the alleged victims and witnesses against him.

Article 34 - while in “MRT” detention facilities he was in the impossibility to submit his application to this Court as the penitentiary ’ s administration hindered the effective exercise of this right by creating impediments through a thorough control of all incoming and outgoing correspondence.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - he was unlawfully deprived of his property.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

16281/11

10/03/2011

Ostap POPOVSCHI

18/09/1985

Tiraspol

On 29 June 2009 the applicant was arrested by the “MRT ” militia on alleged charges of “procurement, storage, transportation, production, processing, and supply in order to illegally sell narcotics and psychotropic substances”. He was held in detention ever since.

On 29 July 2010 the applicant was convicted to fifteen years ’ imprisonment by the Tiraspol district court. The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against this decision.

On 14 September 2010 the applicant was handed the copy of the “MRT ” supreme court decision dismissing his appeal.

From the additional documents submitted to this Court, the applicant was detained for 4 months (including the court proceedings) in the “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs remand center , then following the deterioration of his health condition he was transferred to the “MRT” health care and rehabilitation center of the Tiraspol SIZO-3, and ultimately transferred to Tiraspol penitentiary facility No. 2.

In 2012, the applicant ’ s mother complained unsuccessfully to the Moldovan authorities.

Article 3 - poor conditions of hygiene, overcrowding, insufficient individual space in the remand center while in one cell there were detained 19 persons, passive smoking, acute scent of mould, humidity, presence of parasites, lack of drinking water, insufficient sleeping hours, lack of ventilation, lack of natural light, lack of food, 24h of artificial lightening.

Article 3 - continuous unlawful detention since 29 June 2009, ill-treatment by the “militia” during the interrogations in order to obtain self-incriminatory statements, inhuman conditions of detention in “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs ’ remand center , “MRT” health care and rehabilitation center of the Tiraspol SIZO-3: lack of adequate medical assistance while he suffered from “acute bronchitis in chronic condition, bronchial asthma with frequent fits caused by bronchospasm and bronchial airflow limitation, 2nd degree respiratory insufficiency, chronic gastritis, biliary dyskinesia”, his heath condition being put at risk, lack of appropriate medical conditions for treatment.

Article 5 § 1 - he was arrested by persons lacking the authority to arrest him, his further detention was authorised and extended by illegal courts set up by the “MRT” authorities and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention, the applicant considering himself a victim of a continuing violation.

Article 6 § 1 - alleged lack of procedural guarantees of a fair trial before the Tiraspol district court and supreme court of the “MRT”: on appeal his case was examined in his absence and he was deprived of the possibility of submitting his arguments in person.

Article 7 - he was applied a heavier penalty than the ones provided for the same offences by the respondent Governments ’ legislation in force.

Article 34 - he was denied visits by his lawyer with a view to lodging an application with this Court, including signing of the application form and of the power of attorney.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - he was unlawfully sanctioned with the seizure of his entire property, following an unlawful trial, this measure being excessive as opposed to the aim pursued and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention, he lacks any accessible effective remedies against these infringements.

Article 13 - lack of effective remedies in respect of the infringements under the Articles mentioned above.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

25197/11

11/04/2011

Alexandru URSU

10/04/1981

Hagimus

On 21 July 2009 the applicant was arrested (“kidnapped” as stated by the applicant) in Bender by “MRT ” militia on alleged charges of forgery of documents, use of forged documents and fraud. He was placed for 40 days in a cell of Bender militia ’ s premises, lacking proper conditions of detention and subjected to ill-treatment and psychological pressure (that his father would be arrested as well) with a view to determining him to make self-incriminatory statements.

The applicant ’ s father was forced by “MRT ” militia to donate his apartment to the alleged victim in exchange for his son ’ s alleged release.

On 19 May 2010 the applicant was convicted by the Bender district court to fifteen years ’ imprisonment. The applicant ’ s conviction was upheld by the “MRT ” supreme court ’ s decision of 29 June 2009. He was provided with the copy of it on 12 October 2010.

The applicant atones his sentence in the Tiraspol ’ s penitentiary No. 1 ( Hlinaia ). He complained unsuccessfully before the Republic of Moldova ’ s authorities.

Article 3 - not invoked expressly, but in substance: detention prior to conviction - the cells infested with bugs, lack of toilet facilities, conditions of hygiene, lack of access to showers, lack of ventilation, no walks outside the cell.

Article 3 - ill-treated while interrogated by Bender militia with a view to providing self-incriminatory statements, lost his consciousness, headaches, nausea, nasal hemorrhages , acute liver and kidney pains, he was moving with difficulty, was transported to the hospital, subjected to psychological pressure that his father would be arrested as well if he would not confess.

Article 5 § 1 - he was arrested by persons lacking the authority to arrest him, his further detention was authorised and extended by illegal courts set up by the “MRT” authorities and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention; he was not assisted by counsel of his own choice during the interrogation, the one provided by “MRT ” militia insisting on making self-incriminatory statements; his requests to make a call and to be granted a lawyer and an interpreter have been dismissed; he was not provided with copies of the documents in the case-file against him; he was not brought before an “independent tribunal established by law” to review the lawfulness of his detention.

Article 6 § 1 - the proceedings were carried out by unrecognised and illegal “courts” lacking authority to that effect and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention; on appeal his case was examined in his absence and he was deprived of the possibility of submitting his arguments in person and of the possibility to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. The applicant also invokes the unlawful review of his conviction by the “MRT” supreme court and an infringement of the principle of equality of arms. He also contends that he was convicted on the basis of “evidence” acquired by means of blackmail and threatening.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - an infringement of the equality of arms ’ principle in the proceeding before the “MRT” supreme court (examination of his appeal in his / his representative ’ s absence, he being not notified about the date of the hearing; the impugned hearing was attended only by the “MRT” prosecution authority).

Article 13 - lack of any effective remedies in respect of the infringements mentioned above.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

767/12

26/12/2011

Natalya SHAPOVAL

24/05/1960

Ribnita

On 28 March 2011 the applicant was arrested by the “MRT” authorities under suspicion of embezzlement and has been kept in detention ever since. Her arrest was extended several times by the so-called “MRT ” courts at the request of the “MRT ” prosecutor ’ s office. However, she was not provided with all the copies of the impugned requests and court decisions on extending her arrest and was denied the right to be represented by the lawyer of her own choosing while under investigation.

The applicant was held in the СИЗО Hlinaia in Tiraspol, pending trial. The last court decision on the prolongation of her arrest (until 28 January 2012) dates from 25 November 2011.

No further information on the development of the proceedings.

Article 3 - humidity, passive smoking, lack of hygienic products, lack of bed linen, lack of adequate medical assistance, her relatives being requested to provide her with the necessary medication (for diabetes, chronic paraproctitis ), toilet insufficiently separated from the cell causing a lack of intimacy, lack of shower facilities in the cell, small-sized windows, insufficient time for walks, poor conditions of hygiene, her health condition being put at risk.

Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 - she was held in detention based on a conviction by illegally created “MRT ” courts, she and her lawyer were not provided with copies of the documents in the case-file against her; she was not brought before an “independent tribunal established by law” to review the lawfulness of her detention.

Article 6 - lack of access to a “court” and no “fair trial”, the lawyer chosen by the applicant was not allowed (by the “MRT” investigation authority) to represent the applicant on the ground that “the criminal proceedings concerned issues related to the “MRT ” state secrets, while the lawyer pertained to a foreign country (Moldova).

Article 8 - all the detainees ’ correspondence was opened and read by the penitentiary ’ s administration, the correspondence with the “MRT” law enforcement authorities, with the lawyers and the international organisations are only shown (not provided) to the detainees and included in their personal files, as provided by the “MRT” legislation in force.

Article 13 - lack of any effective remedies in respect of the infringements under Articles 3, 6 and 8 mentioned above.

Russia

32528/12

22/05/2012

Oksana IONOVA

03/06/1966

Tiraspol

In March 2012 the applicant was subjected by the “MRT” authorities to four criminal proceedings (on alleged charges of “abuse of office”, “illegal participation in business activities”, “abuse of authority”). At a later stage, all these proceedings were joined into a single one. She was arrested and kept in detention ever since.

The applicant ’ s lawyers contested the “MRT ” courts ’ decisions extending her arrest. However, their contestations were dismissed. They were not provided with copies of those dismissal decisions. The last decision dates from 25 May 2012.

The applicant complained unsuccessfully before the Presidents of Russia and Moldova, the Head of the Russian Government, the OSCE Mission to Moldova, etc.

She was detained pending trial in the remand center of “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs and later in the remand center of the Tiraspol ’ s penitentiary No. 3 ( Hlinaia ).

According to the latest information from the applicant of 17 April 2013, the criminal file was transferred to Tiraspol ’ s court for consideration.

Article 3 - the cell was not equipped with a shower, lack of a separate toilet room, draught and low temperature in the cell when it was cold outside and hot when warm outside; small-sized windows, insufficient access to natural light, insufficient time for walks, the courtyard for walking outside the cell consisted of premises with no windows and a gridded roof; lack of bed linen and hygienic products; poor conditions of hygiene, her health condition being put at risk; presence of insects and bugs; the limit of the goods which could be sent to the prisoners (30 kilograms for one person per month) amounted to a form of hunger torture as the applicant suffered from malnutrition because of that limit and the poor quality of prison food; poor quality of running water, poor quality of food.

Article 3 - the applicant was subjected to a medical investigation (following several requests submitted by her lawyers), including a gynaecological one, in the presence of 8-9 male security guards. The gynaecological examination was very painful, causing her bleeding and nausea for one week. She was prescribed antibiotics to be provided by her mother but the medication had not been transmitted by the penitentiary authority to the doctors. Her throat was injured during fibro-gastroscopy causing her difficulties in communicating ( aphonia ), while in detention she lacked adequate medical assistance and nutrition which led to the aggravation of her health condition (she allegedly suffers from “chronic gastritis, esophageal reflux, chronic hepatitis, dysmetabolic cardiomyopathy without circulatory disorders, vaginosis , astheno -neurotic syndrome, autoimmune thyroiditis”), she needs a qualified medical investigation and assistance which cannot be provided in the detention conditions of the remand center of the Tiraspol ’ s penitentiary No. 3 ( Hlinaia ).

Article 5 § 1 - she is held in detention based on a conviction by illegally created “MRT ” courts. Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for her detention. She and her lawyers were not provided with the copies of the case-file against her, they lacked access to all the documentation from the case-file. She was not brought before an “independent tribunal established by law” to review the lawfulness of her detention. The last prolongation of her arrest was decided in her and her lawyers ’ absence, she lacked all the procedural safeguards, considering herself the victim of a continuing violation.

Article 6 - the applicant ’ s lawyers ’ access to documents in regard of the complaints under Articles 3 and 5 was restricted, they were subjected to intimidation and pressure by the “MRT” investigation authority by being compelled to sign a so-called “declaration on non-disclosure of the preliminary investigation ’ s data” in order to have access to the case-file, to which they refused, the lawyers chosen by her had to obtain an authorisation for which a fee of USD 300 was needed (to be paid to the “MRT” bar association) in order to obtain entitlement to represent her in their capacity as “foreign lawyers” before the “MRT” authorities.

Article 8 - all the detainees ’ correspondence was opened and read by the penitentiary ’ s administration, correspondence with the “MRT” law enforcement authorities, with the lawyers and the international organisations was only shown (not provided) to the detainees and included in their personal files, as provided by the “MRT” legislation in force. She was denied the right to confidential meetings with her lawyers and with the representatives of the Moldovan and Russian embassies, as the meetings were held under the supervision of several persons (the investigator and other officials), the room being equipped with video cameras recording (audio/visual) the meeting with lawyers.

Article 13 - the applicant complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3, 6 and 8 about the absence of effective remedies in regard of the alleged violations.

Republic of Moldova

and Russia

28972/13

02/05/2012

Serghei BOLTENCO

Tiraspol

On 24 December 2005 the applicant was arrested by the Ribnita militia on alleged charges of “organisation of theft and thievery in large quantities of ferrous metal from the workplace”. He has been kept in detention ever since. The preliminary investigation lasted three years. On 27 February 2009 the applicant was found guilty as charged by the Ribnita district court and sentenced to 15 years ’ imprisonment and confiscation of his property. His conviction was upheld by the “MRT ” supreme court decision of 12 May 2009.

The applicant ’ s wife complained unsuccessfully before the “MRT” authorities as well as before Moldovan ones about his illegal detention in inhuman and degrading conditions.

Between December 2005 and May 2007 the applicant was detained in the Ribnita remand center (under the custody of the “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs) and afterwards, in the remand center pertaining to the “MRT ” ministry of justice. From July 2007 to June 2009 he was held in the Ribnita remand center .

Following his conviction, the applicant was transferred to the Tiraspol ’ s penitentiary facility No. 2

Article 2 - the lack of adequate medical assistance and the inhuman conditions of his continuous detention led to the continuous aggravation of his health condition (he had suffered a heart attack and had to have extracted his molar teeth), putting his life at risk, in breach of the respondent States ’ positive obligations.

Article 3 (before conviction) - overcrowding, he was held in a basement with 6-8 inmates; lack of natural light as the cell ’ s windows were blocked with bricks; lack of ventilation; lack of toilet facilities; poor quality of water; impossibility to read and write because of the lack of light; high level of humidity; lack of space to dry clothes other than the hallways; no walks and lack of courtyards destined for walks; low level of heating in the winter; lack of adequate conditions of transport from one place of detention to the other (by means of a metal truck with other 39 inmates; passive smoking, the iron walls of the truck generated compressed air, lack of water and no access to toilets).

Article 3 (after conviction) - overcrowding (8-10 inmates in a cell measuring 2m x 3m); insufficient sleeping space; poor conditions of hygiene; lack of hygienic products; presence of bedbugs; frozen and altered food products supply; poor quality of food; he is detained in a “barrack” with other 100 detainees; leak of water on the barrack ’ s walls and roof, the repair works in the barrack were carried out at the expense of the detainees ’ relatives, the construction materials had been transmitted by the relatives to the penitentiary ’ s administration but the detainees were the ones who carried out the repair works; access to showers was only once per week; insufficient personal hygienic products.

Article 3 (medical assistance ) - lack of adequate medical assistance, lack of medication and lack of specific medical facilities and qualified personnel while the applicant suffered from severe illnesses (“acute myocardial infarction”, “angina pectoris”, “hypertonic disease”), lack of a dentist and a cardiologist, his continuous illegal detention in the conditions mentioned above while lacking proper medical assistance amounts to an inhuman and degrading treatment, putting his life at risk. His health condition aggravated while in detention. He also suffered a heart attack; he is not provided with extracts form his medical records; he was not subjected to an examination of his blood cholesterol level; the medical section from the penitentiary is run by an unlicensed physician-therapist who is not entitled to issue medical prescriptions; the relatives being in the impossibility to purchase the necessary medication for the inmates ’ treatment.

Article 13 - the applicant complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 about the absence of effective remedies in respect of the alleged violations.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

80882/13

24/12/2013

Vasile UNTILOV

09/06/1968

Varniţa

On 27 October 2009 the applicant and his son were arrested by the “MRT” authorities on suspicion of drug trafficking. The applicant was brought to the organised crime department of the “MRT ” ministry of internal affairs. His son was released on an unknown date.

The applicant was allegedly tortured in order to confess to the illegal trafficking of drugs. He was then placed in the temporary detention facility of the Tiraspol militia (IVS Tiraspol).

On 1 February 2010 the applicant was moved to prison No. 1 in Hlinaia . In April 2010 the applicant was moved to the IVS Bender.

On 19 April 2011 the Bender City Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 15 years ’ imprisonment. This judgment was quashed by the “MRT ” supreme court on 17 May 2011.

In June 2011 he was moved to prison No. 3 in Tiraspol.

On 26 October 2011 the Bender City Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 16 years and six months of imprisonment. That judgment was partly quashed by the “MRT ” supreme court on 22 November 2011 by reducing the sentence to 15 years ’ imprisonment.

On 26 October 2011, after his conviction, the applicant was moved to prison No. 2 in Tiraspol, where he continues to be detained.

Article 3 (prison No. 1 Hlinaia , IVS Tiraspol, IVS Bender, prisons No. 2 and No. 3 Tiraspol) - overcrowding; parasitic insects; bad quality of food; lack of natural light; cells infected with pets, rodents and parasitic insects; passive smoking; toilet insufficiently separated from the cell; limited access to showers; insufficient medical treatment; high humidity; transportation from one cell to another in a metal cage with no windows and ventilation.

Article 13 - the applicant did not have effective remedies in respect of the complaint u nder Article 3.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

55698/14

31/07/2014

Valentin BABCHIN

17/07/1975

Bender

On 22 February 2012 the applicant was arrested by the “MRT ” militia on suspicion of deliberate bankruptcy of a company and failure to reimburse the creditors. He was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Tiraspol militia (IVS Tiraspol).

On 4 April 2012 the applicant was moved to the remand center of prison No. 1 in Hlinaia . By the end of April 2012 he was moved to prison No. 3 in Tiraspol. In April 2013 he was again transferred to prison No. 1 in Hlinaia , then to prison No. 3 in Tiraspol until March 2014, when he was moved to prison No. 2 in Tiraspol.

On 19 November 2013 the applicant was convicted by the Tiraspol district court to 15 years ’ imprisonment with confiscation of his property. His conviction was upheld by the “MRT ” supreme court on 4 February 2014.

Article 3 (militia office) - the applicant was handcuffed and placed in a “cage” of a size of 1,5 x 2,5 m, where he spent 6 hours, being deprived of the right to contact his lawyer or relatives.

Article 3 (IVS Tiraspol ) - the applicant was not subjected to a medical examination, was deprived of the right to contact his relatives and inform them of his arrest, the right to contact a lawyer was granted only after 3 days; overcrowding (12-20 convicts in one cell); passive smoking; lack of adequate conditions for sleeping; lack of natural light; toilet insufficiently separated from the cell; bad smell; no cell disinfection; improvised bed lacking mattress covers and bedlinen; humidity; mould, non-working sanitary facilities; leak of water; lack of fresh air and ventilation; lack of windows; poor conditions of hygiene; presence of parasites; poor quality of food; lack of an adequate place to store food and to serve meals; lack of hygienic products; insufficient access to showers; insalubrious conditions in the showers; detained in the same cell with those sick of tuberculosis; insufficient time for walking outside the cell; the walks were granted in an underground small space with no access to natural day light or fresh air. His health condition aggravated because of these inhuman conditions of detention, lost 12 kg of weight, the medication transmitted by the relatives was not passed on to the applicant, lack of qualified medical assistance and of adequate medication.

Article 3 (prison No. 1 in Hlinaia ) - the above description of the conditions in the IVS Tiraspol largely coincides with that in prison No. 1 in Hlinaia (overcrowding, bad quality of food, lack of adequate medical assistance, insalubrious conditions, lack of adequate conditions for sleeping, presence of parasite insects, humidity, passive smoking, insufficient time for walking outside the cell, health condition aggravated in absence of qualified medical assistance, denied the right to visits with his family).

Article 3 (prison No. 3 in Tiraspol) - again overcrowding, bad quality of food, presence of parasites, insalubrious conditions, high level of humidity, the laundry being done in the cell, insufficient access to showers, during the summer time the showers lacked hot water.

Article 3 (prison No. 2 in Tiraspol) - similar conditions of detention, putting his life at a continuous risk.

Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 - the applicant was arrested by persons lacking the authority to arrest him, his further detention was authorised and extended by illegal courts set up by the “MRT” authorities and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention. He was deprived of procedural guarantees, including the lack of any legal basis or review of his detention, lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - deprivation of his property based on his unlawful conviction by the unlawfully created courts.

Article 13 - the applicant had no effective remedies either in Moldova or Russia in respect of his complaints under the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention.

Republic of Moldova and Russia

8387/15

03/02/2015

Ivan ROSIP

20/05/1958

Bender

On 20 December 2012 the applicant (a businessman) was arrested by the “MRT” authorities on suspicion of fraud and causing damage to property by deceit or abuse of trust. He was held in detention ever since (in the Tiraspol militia (IVS Tiraspol), remand center of prison No. 1 in Hlinaia , remand center No. 3 in Tiraspol (“СИЗО-3”)).

On 16 June 2014 the Bender City Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 1 year and 8 months ’ imprisonment with the confiscation of his property. This judgment was partially quashed by the “MRT ” supreme court on 5 August 2014, the applicant being set free from detention.

The applicant complained unsuccessfully before the Republic of Moldova ’ s and Russia ’ s authorities.

Article 3 - the applicant was denied qualified medical assistance and was held and transported in inhuman conditions of detention (overcrowding, poor conditions of hygiene, lack of hygienic products, bad food quality, passive smoking causing him headaches and nausea, high humidity, transportation in a metal truck at – 6º C, lack of ventilation, lack of adequate medication, insufficient light, improvised bed, lack of dishes, lack of windows, lack of food and water, lack of adequate heating, the applicant sleeping in his clothes, lack of blankets, bad quality of running water, insufficient toilet facilities), while being moved repeatedly from one detention facility to another, destabilising his health condition even further.

Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 - the applicant was arrested by persons lacking the authority to arrest him, his further detention was authorised and extended by illegal courts set up by the “MRT” authorities and based on “MRT” laws which are contrary to the Convention, he was deprived of procedural guarantees, including the lack of any legal basis or review of his detention, lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - deprivation of his property based on his unlawful conviction by the unlawfully created courts.

Article 13 - the applicant had no effective remedies either in Moldova or Russia in respect of his complaints under the above-mentioned Articles of the Convention.

Republic of Moldova and Russia